Monday, July 10, 2017

Old Christian music grump

I got saved in the spring of 1973, and largely grew up spiritually with the Jesus Music of the '70s and '80s.  It's not like I didn't appreciate at least *some* of the hymns (I went to Asbury College, a decent Christian college with roots back into the Holiness movement, with professors who encouraged us to read hymn lyrics (pretty good advice, actually).  Of course, back then there were those who objected to Jesus Music, saying that the hymns were good enough.

As I approach my 60's, I'm finding the the temptation is definitely there to become one of those 'the old music is good enough' old grumps, except that in my case the 'old music' is my 60's/70's Jesus music compared to modern CCM (rather than comparing 'the old hymns' to the new music).  I'm tempted to grump about the superiority of the old CCM versus the current CCM.

I've tried to look at why this comes up and not just succumb to the temptation.  So far, this is what I've come up with:
  1. I'm not really comparing apples to apples.  Anytime you compare 'old music' to 'new music' (particularly when the old music is something you remember from your much younger years(for those of us who have much younger years)), you're not really comparing equivalent music.  In any period of time, you're got schlock music, and good music, and everything in between.  In remembering the old music, you by and large don't remember the schlock music from back then.  It was forgettable, so you forgot it.  But when dealing with the current music, you don't have much choice but to face it all.  You're comparing the best of the old stuff with the entirety of the range of quality of the new.  It's not surprising that in that comparison, the new stuff comes up short.
  2. I've got years of emotional investment in the old music that I can't possibly have invested in the new.  I've been a Christian over 40 years.  Over the years, Christian music (both hymns and CCM) has comforted and instructed me, and helped me hang on.  It's unlikely that the new stuff is going to have the same emotional impact as my old familiar music, and expecting it to do so would be unreasonable.  Nor would it be reasonable to expect younger Christians (to whom my 'old music' may very well be new) to react as I do to my old, familiar music - they simply can't have the same time of emotional impact as I've had.  I'll have to admit, this latter part is something I struggle with.
  3. Overidentifying with music, and taking it personally when people don't share your tastes. - Would John have included the 'lust of the ear' if music had been as much a part of the world then as it is now?  Note that  in the world, it's not unusual to find that people react negatively when you put down their music.  Dis their music, and you'll get a reaction (even if they  don't use that terminology).  Though taste in music is primarily subjective, we like to regard our own musical likes and dislikes as though they are fairly objective truth.  I like it, so liking it must be  right, right?  There are reasons I like my music, so other people should accept those reasons and like it, ,too.  At one point, I realized  that I  tended to refer to the Jesus Music of the '70s and '80s as "My Music".  I no longer think that that's necessarily healthy.  Having personal likes and dislkes is fine - you're going to have them.  Over-identifying with them isn't.  It means that you're going to become proud of and over-protective of those preferences - like the world, reacting to dislike your preferences in music very negatively.  There is value in the old hymns and the older music - be willing to share the  value you  see in them, but avoid acting like those who don't see the same value, and who prefer other music must be missng it.

Saturday, July 08, 2017

BAM! arguments, or gentle correction?

Surprise!  I've actually made a post without waiting over a year!

I've long thought that 2 Tim 2:24-25a ("And the Lordʼs slave must not engage in heated disputes but be kind toward all, an apt teacher, patient, correcting opponents with gentleness.") should govern our discussions a lot more than it typcally does.  Even in Christian discussions, "heated disputes" often characterizes our disagreements rather than "correcting with gentleness".

But lately, the followup verses (2 Tim 2:25b-26  "Perhaps God will grant them repentance and then knowledge of the truth and they will come to their senses and escape the devilʼs trap where they are held captive to do his will.") have gotten my attention.  We often offer an argument expecting that that argument will effectly stop our opponents in their tracks, that they'll find themselves so  thoroughly refuted that they shut up (there's a reason that a common form of click-bait headline is effectively "X's response  DESTROYS opponent Ys argument" (of course, if you click through, you  typically find that it doesn't really destroy the opponent's argument).  We *want* our side to be that "victorious".  If inflates our pride in being on the  "right side").  But this passage from Paul doesn't seem to engender that expectation.  It's more like you leave the effectiveness  of your gentle correction up to God, with the result dependent on whether God gives then the grace, repentence and recognition of the truth necessary to escape the error they're in (of couse, this assumes that  our gentle correction (or heated argument) was correct in the first place, which if we're honest, is regrettably not always the case).  The attitude is what gets my attention.  It's not "superior", or prideful, or arrogant (all of which  are attitudes that often turn off those we're trying to reach).  It's a gentle presentation of the truth, leaving the results up  to the Father's grace.  Are we doing this?